If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The One Bullet Theory

How can a bullet hit so many bones and still look pristine? If there is an answer to that it is probably in the realm of hallucinatory experience. BUT if that wasn't enough to amaze me - I wondered how people even years later after certain admissions were made regarding Clay Shaw and so many witnesses were killed - HOW could people support this government and not study what JFK was doing. If you look at the scroll to the beginning of the movie JFK you will see he was going to put the CIA out of business. Secret societies have a long history of working for the bankers and I document this in spades. But JFK was going further than even his family elders could stomach when he said he would institute the issuance of Silver Certificates to end interest payments on the national debt. If that were done in conjunction with instituting generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) there would be no deficits.

I have written a book on the subject and I will answer any questions people may have.

This link details the nature of plausible deniability and how easy it was to get people lining up to help or kill JFK. Remember George I was CIA and he was involved in changing the route of the motorcade at a minimum. Somehow the Dulles CIA brothers get a place on the Warren Commission too. Their family plot at Fort Hill cemetery near Auburn, New York is most important to my research on Myles Keogh who is probably my ancestor and who was involved with a Martin (Martinists are above Dragon Royals maybe.).

Since the Post article and review has disappeared when I tried to click it. I will try to post the whole article here. The most important part is near the end.

Stephen Kinzer’s “The Brothers” tells the story of two siblings who achieved remarkable influence, serving as secretary of state and director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Eisenhower administration. It is a bracing and disturbing study of the exercise of American global power.

Kinzer, a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, displays a commanding grasp of the vast documentary record, taking the reader deep inside the first decades of the Cold War. He brings a veteran journalist’s sense of character, moment and detail. And he writes with a cool and frequently elegant style. The most consequential aspect of Kinzer’s work is his devastating critique of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, who are depicted as jointly responsible for acts of extreme geopolitical myopia, grave operational incompetence and misguided adherence to a creed of corporate globalism.

The Dulles brothers’ grandfather briefly served as secretary of state to President Benjamin Harrison. Their father, the Rev. Allen Macy Dulles, was a preacher and theologian who reared his boys to embrace missionary Christianity. Yet it was via Wall Street and the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell that both Dulles brothers ascended to power in Washington.

The elder brother, known as Foster, “thrived at the point where Washington politics intersected with global business,” Kinzer writes. At age 38 he became the sole managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell. “Thus began his quarter century as one of the American elite’s most ruthlessly effective and best-paid courtiers.”

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Office of Strategic Services, the precursor to the CIA, Allen Dulles was among its first senior officers. Allen had spent a decade at the State Department before accepting his brother’s offer to join the global legal practice at Sullivan & Cromwell and then serving in the OSS. He was dispatched to Switzerland, where his circle of relationships included the seminal psychoanalytic theorist Carl Gustav Jung, who was commissioned to prepare psychological profiles of Hitler and other Nazi leaders.

Foster was stridently moralistic, but cunning and strategic in international commerce. Allen was facile and charming, a seemingly pathological womanizer with a lifelong passion for the ethos of espionage. “From a client’s perspective,” Kinzer writes, “they made an ideal team: one brother was great fun and a gifted seducer, the other had uncanny skill in building fortunes.”

Foster served as a foreign policy adviser to his friend Thomas Dewey, the governor of New York and a perennial presidential candidate, and emerged as a Republican Party mandarin and leading spokesman on major issues of the day. He denounced the rise of global communism, condemning its “diabolical outrages” and ideology of “evil, ignorance, and despair.” Foster became an avid critic of Stalin’s essays and speeches, keeping half a dozen copies of them in each of his various dwellings. His ritualized invocations of the communist threat induced despair among some liberal commentators. “The outlook for world peace,” one pundit wrote, “seems to be getting dull, duller, Dulles.”

With the election of Republican Dwight Eisenhower as president in 1952, Foster finally secured the job he coveted: America’s premier diplomat. Allen, who had joined the recently created CIA in 1951, was selected by Eisenhower to be its director. Never before or since — not even during the tenure of national security adviser McGeorge Bundy and his brother, William, an assistant secretary of state — had two siblings enjoyed such concentrated power to manage U.S. foreign policy.

Kinzer’s history acknowledges that Eisenhower sought to continue the “Grand Strategy” of containment, through which the United States would attempt to constrain — but not necessarily reverse — the growth of global communism. As commander in chief, Eisenhower “combined the mind-set of a warrior with a sober understanding of the devastation that full-scale warfare brings,” Kinzer writes. “That led him to covert action. With the Dulles brothers as his right and left arms, he led the United States into a secret global conflict that raged throughout his presidency.”

According to Kinzer’s reconstruction of the Eisenhower era, the president was an enabler of the Dulles brothers’ obsession with six different nationalist and communist movements around the world that would provide successive case studies in the potential of covert action and its pronounced limitations.

The first test came in Iran, where nationalist Mohammad Mossadegh became prime minister in 1951 and swiftly moved to nationalize Iran’s oil industry, seizing control of the country’s petroleum wealth from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a primarily British enterprise. Operation Ajax, designed to oust Mossadegh, initially floundered. But the CIA paid street mobs to terrorize Tehran and recruited dissident military units that converged on Mossadegh’s home on Aug. 19, 1953. After a battle that killed hundreds, the Mossadegh government was overthrown. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed, “ruled with increasing repression for a quarter century, and then was overthrown in a revolution that brought fanatically anti-Western clerics to power.”

The CIA next, in 1954, deposed Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz, a former defense minister and leftist political reformer who expropriated nearly 400,000 acres of land owned by the powerful United Fruit Company. Arbenz represented a potent threat comparable to Mossadegh and his seizure of Iran’s oil assets. “Their crackdown on corporate power led Foster and Allen to presume that they were serving Soviet ends,” Kinzer writes. “Two reasons for striking them — defending corporate power and resisting Communism — blended into one.”

These early victories in covert action were followed by a series of failed or unnecessary interventions that the author attributes to the brothers’ hubris and incompetence. In Vietnam, the communist and nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh proved to be as resilient and relentless an adversary as the United States ever confronted. In Indonesia, the American effort to unseat neutralist President Sukarno constituted one of the largest covert operations of the 1950s but also ended in failure.

In the African nation of Congo, a charismatic former postal clerk named Patrice Lumumba became leader after the end of Belgian colonial rule. The CIA perceived him as sympathetic to Moscow and in 1960 helped the Congolese military depose him. Lumumba was then abducted, beaten and murdered by his political rivals and Belgian police. Only 200 days separated his inauguration and his death.

The Bay of Pigs operation remains among the greatest debacles in CIA history, an epic mess for which Allen Dulles was eventually fired. By the time 1,400 American-sponsored Cuban exiles blundered ashore in April 1961 in an effort to spark a spontaneous revolution, their mission had already been exposed. Months before, a New York Times headline had blared: “U.S. Helps Train an Anti-Castro Force at Secret Guatemalan Air-Ground Base.”

Allen had a pattern of delegating operational responsibilities to a dangerous degree, in this instance entrusting the fate of the invasion to his deputy, Richard Bissell. Both men were mired in abject denial about the operation’s prospects. A Marine Corps amphibious-war expert advised them that the United States would “be courting disaster” if it did not neutralize Cuban air and naval assets by providing “adequate tactical air support.” Yet Allen and Bissell knew that a newly inaugurated President John F. Kennedy had ruled out any intervention by U.S. forces, the precise condition upon which the invasion’s success depended.

Allen Dulles’s “mind was undisciplined,” Kinzer concludes. “A senior British agent who worked with him for years recalled being ‘seldom able to penetrate beyond his laugh, or to conduct any serious professional conversation with him for more than a few sentences.’ ” Kinzer is similarly blunt in his assessment of Foster’s intellect, quoting Winston Churchill’s disparaging verdict that the secretary of state was “dull, unimaginative, uncomprehending.”

The author asserts that the Dulles brothers suffered from a form of sibling groupthink. “Their worldviews and operational codes were identical,” Kinzer writes. “Deeply intimate since childhood, they turned the State Department and the CIA into a reverberating echo chamber for their shared certainties.”

Fritz Springmeyer is not a source you will usually find me quoting. He is a VERY Christian sort. But most of the first link here is his and so I should also quote him about the Merovingian (Means family of Jesus, or Baruch etc.) bloodlines or the 13 families. I told my oldest brother about these things including the Russells like his youthful guide Bertrand. He knows a modern-day Russell who confirmed what I said but he would not give me access to the family books just as the family of my Illuminatus lady (see the thread An Illuminatus Speaks) was unable to get me such access. Herein he poses things about the assassination of JFK who went against the bankers who are also in the blood or San Graal. Note Vlad is there in the lower left.

You may think the albino who wore thorns around his genitalia or flagellated himself was a fiction made from a creative mind in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Opus Dei and The Pilgrims or Beacon Hill Mob along with an inner sanctum of European nobility inside the Knights of Malta are all just fictions too. My oldest brother and I were targets of the Head of The Knights of Malta in Canada when we were young. Our Regimental Sargent-Major named Joe Frendo-Cumbo was a very outgoing friendly sort and I wondered what he knew or saw in us. He only pursued us as far as I know, but some others higher up or older members of the officer's club were probably in the Knights. At the time I knew almost nothing about Camp X or my own name including being named after a founder of a Templar re-organization in Scotland which may be the earliest Rosicrucian society you will find in history. Of course the name does not make it so just because it is the first such group with Rosicrucianus in it. Yep, we are related to Robert the Bruce as my father had said was a family legend. I did find proof a few years ago.

Study this link hard. Here is one little part of it which you really have to take a month or so of further research to grasp. JFK and Khrushchev were going to end the Cold War. Rockefeller made his first visit to Moscow to direct an end to Khrushchev just a weekend before it happened. Do not accept any meaning attributed to the word 'communist'.

"Daniele Ganser, 'NATO's Secret Armies', p. 70-71: "On election day in April 1963 the CIA nightmare materialised: The Communists gained strength while all other parties lost seats.... the Socialists were also given cabinet posts in the Italian government under Prime Minister Aldo Moro of the left-wing of the DCI [Christian Democratic Party]... Kennedy had allowed Italy to shift to the left. As the Socialists were given cabinet posts the Italian Communists, due to their performance at the polls, also demanded to be rewarded with posts in the cabinet and in May 1963 the large union of the construction workers demonstrated in Rome. The CIA was alarmed and members of the secret Gladio army disguised as police and civilians smashed the demonstration leaving more than 200 demonstrators injured. (46) But for Italy the worst was yet to come. In November 1963, US President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, under mysterious circumstances. And five months later the CIA with SIFAR, the Gladio secret army and the paramilitary police carried out a right-wing coup d'état which forced the Italian Socialists to leave their cabinet posts they had held only for such a short period. Code-named 'Piano Solo' the coup was directed by General Giovanni De Lorenzo whom Defence Minister Giulio Andreotti of the DCI had transferred from chief of SIFAR to chief of the Italian paramilitary police, the Carabinieri. In close cooperation with CIA secret warfare expert Vernon Walters, William Harvey, chief of the CIA station in Rome, and Renzo Rocca, Director of the Gladio units within the military secret service SID, De Lorenzo escalated the secret war. Rocca first used his secret Gladio army to bomb the offices of the DCI and the offices of a few daily newspapers and thereafter blamed the terror on the left in order to discredit both the Communists and the Socialists. (47)" Andreotti earned the label "the most powerful man in Rome, after the Pope" in the 1960s."

J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ used to enjoy watching Hoover's agent filmed blackmail evidence for all Washington movers and shakers and we are now a lot more aware of the nature of the unelected Tyrant who ruled for five decades. But what involvement did LBJ and Prescott Bush have with the Assassination squad headed by G. H. W. Bush. Why was Nixon in a Dallas hotel that day? Was JFK going to do more than end the Cold War and the CIA? Did he intend to de-classify the documents that are now available which cause the survivors of Auschwitz to sue GHW Bush?

LYNDON JOHNSON - THE DAY AFTER DALLAS:

How could the Kennedy's and their extended family including Sargent Shriver and McGeorge Bundy (another Merovingian family of primary importance like the Russell, Onassis, Reynolds, Li, Collins, Rothschild, Dupont, Astor, Rockefeller names.) allow the assassination of their young prodigy. Did they know his sexual and out of control drug appetites? Was their image more important or was the idea of an end to the Cold War too threatening to their present investments? The end of this entry will include as many questions as we ask and a whole bunch more if you really think about these things. Now that we know the nature of J. Edgar Hoover and people like Clay Shaw as well as the obvious cover up of his involvement with the CIA that Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were part of (that would have made Jim Garrison a winner in his New Orleans lawsuit) a more complete cover up and ensuing deceit than most gambits of these times, we can take a better look at Lyndon Johnson.

His campaign manager for his first congressional election confessed they stuffed ballot boxes on his death bed. He enjoyed viewing the sex tapes that J. Edgar kept over the head of all Washington politicos and lobbyists. Lyndon was the man the Pentagon and armaments manufacturers could trust to expand the war in Vietnam. He did just THAT; despite running against the stated purposes of Barry Goldwater to declare war and use tactical weapons rather than Agent Orange (which served a horror similar to Gulf War Syndrome, upon the American soldiers) to clear the jungles - on the road to an efficient end to a debacle.

William Manchester wrote a book shortly after the event that does little to answer any questions raised so far - it was called The Death of the President. A lot of people might say a great deal more than a President was lost when the plot played out its dastardly scheme over the ensuing years. We can only hope that some day the naïve and innocent will actually demand an accounting from the government that has brought them Watergate and lots of other less than honest events to consider since then. We can only ask you to consider the acts of other governments and the P2 or Vatican groups that are part of this whole scenario. We can't expect any such thing; but we will provide a setting and you will choose whether you really want to know what might disturb your sleep as you think of all the things your kids are being given to deal with (that we are only willing to deny, collectively as a society).

"Schlesinger was a man of generous spirit. Yet even he did not know that McGeorge Bundy, the efficiency expert, the human computer, the robot of tempered steel--that Mac had cried in the night for John Kennedy.

{PLEASE! What trite and unproven trash, and when will any journalist mention the word Merovingian on national TV?}

An individual's attitude toward the shift in power was, in short, almost entirely a matter of temperament. Background was entirely irrelevant. Schlesinger, Galbraith, and Bundy had all been recruited from the Harvard faculty. Ken O'Donnell was not seen in the Vice Presidential suite all day, yet Larry O'Brien went over to discuss a Congressional maneuver which would boost the Russian wheat sale, and Sargent Shriver, President Kennedy's brother-in-law, was a realist by any standard. Anxious to see an orderly change of government, Shriver walked across West Executive and volunteered his services. When he attempted to bring the two groups together and ran into what he called a 'lot of flak', he was baffled. In retrospect the flak may seem puzzling now {Why?}. In the context of that Saturday, however, events were very different. The loyalists, swept up in the mightiest current of emotion in their lives, were determined to show proper respect toward the murdered President. The realists played a valuable and difficult role--and history may award them the higher grade, for their service to the national interest was great.

The country, hypnotized by the catafalque, was unaware of any conflict within the government. {Ask yourself how aware this reporter was.} It was virtually impossible to think beyond yesterday's death and the coming funeral. Hugh Sidey argued (in vain) that Time should hold its cover portrait of the new Chief Executive for another week's issue because 'Nobody is interested in Johnson yet.' Not many were. Nevertheless, depicting his mood during his first full day in office is a matter of intrinsic interest. A precise delineation is elusive. The man's chameleon nature had never been more evident. {Or more important if you buy into his part in the takeover of state that was engineered by CIA, Pentagon, Armaments, Mafia and other related groups who were flabbergasted at JFK's willingness to act according to his own conscience. Remember also that this was the first Catholic in office of the President and that the media was greatly more willing to report what their owners were telling them to do as we showed in the first world war and creation of the Fed.} There had never been so many Lyndon Johnsons. It was almost as though a score of identical Texans were holed up backstage in Room 274, each with the same physiogamy and drawl, yet each with his own disposition, ideology, sense of timing, and objectives. George Reedy stepped in, and Lyndon the clairvoyant appeared. 'Everything was chaotic,' Reedy said afterward. 'Only the President knew what he was doing.' Galbraith was announced and greeted by the left-of-center champion. 'I want to come down very hard on civil rights,' Johnson told him, 'not because Kennedy was for it but because 'I' am for it. Keep in mind that I want a liberal policy because I'm a Roosevelt Democrat.' Averell Harriman {Of Brown Brothers, Harriman who funded Hitler and for whom Prescott Bush worked. This Bush later introduced Nixon to the federal political stage.} arrived with his Edwardian gait, and Lyndon said: 'You know I've always thought of you as one of my oldest and best friends in Washington.'

The President was exploiting his great gift for exposing this or that facet of his character so that each visitor would leave with a feeling of warmth and reassurance. Since the visitors entered one at a time, his success was almost universal. The out-and-out loyalists, while remaining distrustful of colleagues who had raced to 274, saw a Lyndon so humble, so shattered by his own anguish, that even Sorensen and Schlesinger were impressed; to David Ormsby-Gore this Lyndon said brokenly, 'If my family took a vote on whether or not I'd stay, there'd be three votes for quitting right away--and maybe four.' That Lyndon vanished, and another appeared, shrewdly advising O'Brien on a technical point of parliamentary procedure. There is no way to reconcile the various members of the flexible Presidential cast. The fact is that each played his part superbly and richly deserves applause. Only the naive would be offended by the variety; John Kennedy would have been engrossed by it. Despite the accuracy of Sidey's judgment, Johnson was a fascinating man that Saturday. One must merely recognize that the man was many men.

... he fenced sharply with the soft-spoken but immovable Nick Katzenbach over whether the assassination should be investigated-by a federal or state board of inquiry; he applied the Johnsonian prod to J. Edgar Hoover, who by now was dispatching fleets of agents to Love Field; {You might ask how Lee Harvey Oswald succeeded in getting past all the state and Federal authorities who should have allowed him to live. You might ask how he was allowed to get in plain view and available to Jack Ruby so that this known cancer victim who would never live to testify fairly, could shoot him. You might have a lot of questions that come from the numerous books and reports that are available.} he proclaimed Monday a day of official mourning;" (1)

"Now if the first shot that wounded President Kennedy did not go on to penetrate Governor Connally also, and if one accepts the Commission's conclusion that President Kennedy was not shot before frame 210 of the Zapruder film, and Governor Connally was not shot after frame 240, then two shots must have been fired in the time it took the Zapruder camera to run through the 30 frames from 210 to 240. That time, at 18.3 frames per second, is something over a second and a half. But tests prove that Oswald's rifle, having once been fired, cannot be fired again in less than 2.3 seconds --- this being the minimum time needed merely to operate the rifle's bolt action, without aiming or otherwise hesitating or pausing. On the Commission's assumptions as to the timing of the shots, therefore, it was physically impossible for Oswald alone to inflict President Kennedy's first wound and also shoot Governor Connally, unless he did it with a single bullet. He could not possibly have done it by shooting twice. If there were two shots within this time-span, there were two assassins. Hence it was entirely "necessary" to the "essential findings of the Commission" to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally; the Commission should have known that it was, and it is not easy to see how the three dissenters from the one-shot hypothesis could sign the Report."

FABULOUS: - Many 'fabulous' personages and concepts are created by man. Some are attempts to make sense of a confusing array of real things he doesn't understand, others are created by those who would have us 'believe'. The art of making others 'believe' what you want them to, is an art that developed over millions of years even if man is only modern for the last hundred thousand years. 'As you believe so shall you do' and fables which set early modes of relating to our environment in nursery rhymes and other equally 'fabulous' or fantastic histories. Revisionist history was definitely begun in earnest during the Babylonian and early Greek era. By the time of Alexander he was so convinced this art was achievable that he declared himself a divine creature and no longer just used the descended from divine or demi-god fiction. All knowledge was to become Hellenized or made to fit the needs of his Empire.

We have perfected this art against our 'brothers' and for the benefit of the few and their minions to the point that it requires a sincere willingness to courageously demonstrate independent thinking and questioning in the face of ridicule and worse. Little of what was believed in the last century is thought to be true today but that does not mean we are closer to the real truth. In fact we may have a more thoroughly manipulated image of our supposed reality than the 19th century elitists who wrote with some excitement about what could be.

The almighty dollar and the increasing social support network is a positive re-inforcer of mass behavior. B. F. Skinner was certainly a bad person for doing what he did to his daughter (keeping her in his attic, etc.) but he was the maven or guru of behavioral psychology and knew what society was headed towards and why; to an extent that his name was synonymous with the word behavior. He said the feudal 'negative reinforcers' like serfdom and whippings actually left a greater freedom for the masses than our great education from birth to grave. Taxes to provide the very controls which we are led to believe we want; might well be why Joseph Kennedy, Sr. (a true villain) told his kids the way to power was going to be in government as he prepared to buy the Presidency for Joe Jr., and eventually Jack.

There was no need to tell the truth when great fiction writers could be bought and the image of 'Camelot' and the Kennedy clan was created. We now know that Jackie was probably the world's highest paid courtesan for her brief time spent with Onassis. A detailed look at their marriage agreement would amaze even the most jaundiced and cynical person. Arts and Entertainment did a decent documentary that showed some of the Chicago mob involvement in the making of what many still consider to be the best American President ever. Jack was a drug abuser and lecher who misused his fellow man in the image and model of his stock swindling drug or alcohol running parent. It isn't so much what they did as how they manipulated the media. In Watergate everyone got to see Nixon try to do it on national TV every night for months. Still we think what we are told has some semblance of truth, or at least the majority of people do, as they follow the footsteps laid out for them.

FAINT-HEARTED: - The faint of heart include those who have serious causes and philanthropical intentions as well as the great unwashed. It is easy to hide oneself in the intensity of any number of issues while losing sight of the real underlying causes of all the concerns that permeate our great society. When we learn to avoid confrontation and begin to accept the polite purpose promulgated by peer pressure we lose perspective and actually support the prevailing ethic of deceit. In fact it is a good thing to share one's thoughts about sex, religion and politics despite the taboos against such behavior.

Yes, it might not make you popular and it certainly puts you in some sticky situations; in the end if you go along with the game and take your piece of the action what might your karma be? Are we not responsible for what is happening at the hands of our collective governments because we participate in the apparent benefits and vote to maintain such frauds and guises of deceit? Why allow your children to be taught the lies of history? Why listen to the same tired clichés and rationalizations about 'What can one man do?' or 'You can't fight City Hall!' We imagine if you were put inside the skin of an Ethiopian or Saudi woman you would find a reason to fight. I know most people want to believe there is justice rather than vengeance in the hearts of our police and penal guards who work for empires of amazing incompetence while fighting to get a piece of the 'pad' or drug action. Who really knows what effect the drugs given mental patients have? Is not the straight-jacket actually more humane than burning or destroying brain cells and 'libido', in pursuit of making people 'manageable'? Did you know they try to sell ECT's as a boon to the elderly while they force Ritalin (an amphetamine, gateway drug) down the throats of children?

Former CIA Director James Woolsey and Bennett are out and about in 2003 telling the truth about the Cold War being properly called World War Three. Just as the current war on terror is WWIV and will continue to be. MacArthur did not want that to happen and he was ready to use the A-Bomb to end the Korean War. He had to be replaced - that kind of sensible action (A-Bombs are tactical weapons and actually save overall life and create less pollution than the alternatives.) could cut into a lot of cronyistic money-making and fear-mongering.

MacArthur was a long time hero of mine and I read all I could about him and his excellent administration in Japan as well as the inspiring speech that is summed up as 'I shall return'. I used that phrase frequently for many years.

In 1980 or thereabouts I went to New Orleans and hired a man who had been George Marshall's top NCO and the Allied chief NCO of commandos in Korea. Thus began my real education and since then I have found much of the stories about MacArthur are really attributable to Marshall or are mere gloss-overs of the truth. Things were not as simple as this man was aware of either. For example the UN was in charge of the Korean operation but a Russian was in charge of its administration.

There was one story my short-term employee had that made a lot of sense. Apparently Truman had to put a stop to the reporting about it because the American people would have been easily whipped into a frenzy by the fact that the Chinese were taking American POWs and betting on when they would die. They drove bamboo shoots into their bodies and continued until the person was declared dead. The winner was the one who had correctly calculated how many it would take and the betting and wagering continued as people saw their original bet go by the wayside. Yes, I can see how this would have made Americans mad enough to use the Bomb on China and end all the nonsense of the Cold War that makes so much money for the armaments and financial concerns with long term investment horizons.

But why would MacArthur back down and not pursue his admitted desire for being President? Why did the Kennedy family keep quiet? What is so HUGE that this kind of thing gets stopped in its tracks? Earlier he had covered up the use of bio-weapons used with American POWs by the Japanese according to various credible sources. But I still don't think that would have stopped him. There must be something more to it. Here is a somewhat radical source for the proof stating what Manchester (a very credible source for the paradigm) covered regarding a Nazi criminal that MacArthur worked with at the same time Kissinger came to be part of General Clay and Baruch's re-construction with other Nazi wanted criminals.

"General Douglas MacArthur -- Another World War II hero, he helped to cover up Japanese war crimes involving chemical and biological experiments on American prisoners so that we could use the secret results. (3) This operation and others directly involved MacArthur's chief of staff, Colonel Charles Willoughby, who is in reality a Nazi criminal, Kurt Weidenbach." (4 & 5)

So why did MacArthur simply disappear from the world stage? It is the same people and plan that includes the assassination of JFK. JFK was about to stop interest on the US debt as well as end the spy network which is run by the Merovingian Rothschild complex including the IMF and World Bank. There are other issues including the Russell Merovingian drug business that George Bush fronted in China and as CIA executive. There is the issue of Old Joe Kennedy and the mob as well as the image or Spin that the Kennedy Stuart Merovingians needed to maintain despite their children being drug using womanizers or consorts with the highest paid prostitute the world has ever seen, who later married (Please check into Jackie's marriage agreement with Onassis who was part of his family's long term involvement in drug running out of Smyrna.) another Merovingian. There are lots of details in the confusion of Plausible Deniability and patsy types who keep us and our attention mired down in all manner of games. But first on the list of causes for the assassination of JFK, Lincoln and Garfield are the banking interests. In fact the corporate behemoth and involvement of the international financial concerns who own the media has gone unabated and their temerity knows no bounds. But people like Chomsky and McLuhan still don't write it plain and simple - secret societies are the main clearing-house and planning group. They do say it in speeches or in person though. There are two good movies to watch and research which tell a little of the story. One is The International which is like BCCI and Bush had a lot to do with. The other is Margin Call and pay close attention to the speech by Jeremy Irons near the end. Then look up every date (year) to see The Treaty of Westphalia and many more humanity shattering dates.

You will find I am often placing other links and as much information as possible to support what I say. I hope my authentication stands up well against academic me-too think. I truth my sources include the best Nobel Laureates and researchers as well as sources which may seem less reputable. No matter which they should all be questioned as should I be questioned. The next report documents a little about Bushco and BCCI which I first clued into while watching the movie JFK near the end when they comment on Clay Shaw's little phone book. Of course the media hatchet job on Garrison was not corrected when the CIA admitted Shaw was exactly what the New Orleans District Attorney accused him of and which the Dulles deviates refused to release information on, despite it shedding real light on the assassination and their own involvement in it, along with George Bush.

"Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge."

Evidence of Revision Part 4, compiled from thousands of television news tapes detailing neglected or ignored evidence, re the June 5, 1968, murder of United States Senator Robert Kennedy.

It has a statement from the Los Angeles Coroner, that the shots that killed Robert Kennedy were fired into his head from a distance of between one and three inches, from behind and below his right ear.

Sirhan Sirhan who was convicted for the killing was several feet to his front, the film has footage of the LA DA simply brushing that aside .. Security Guard Thane Eugene Cesar is thought to have fired the fatal shots! Link.

Lee Harvey Oswald was blamed for killing President Kennedy, and Dallas cop JD Tippit a couple miles away around forty minutes later, despite he was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository when both offenses took place.

In my book on the numerous American Assassinations (If it were in Central America it would be called a Banana Republic) I found a good expose that showed it was a HIT and the MLK shooting has gone to civil court where the family won (no real award of money).

Sirhan may have been a mental case whipped up and encouraged to act out, and that allows 'doubt' in a case where the real culprits get off. If he did not kill Kennedy and the judge says he showed no remorse as was the case here, what is still going on?